I am a Calvinistic Christian as most of you know. We adhere to the Scriptures as literal & true. Our common denominator is the Lord Jesus Christ. The last thing I want to do is cause a division in the body of Christ.....but I need to ask this:
Do you agree with the fundamental points of the acronym TULIP? I certainly do
T. Total Depravity: People are completely sinful and depraved and can do no good on their own
U. Unconditional election: Since people cannot choose for themselves, before the beginning of time, without any goodness on their part, God has chosen for Himself a select number of people to be counted as righteous.
L. Limited Atonement: The effects of God’s atonement on sinful humanity are limited only to those he has chosen
I. Irresistible Grace: The grace God extends to the chosen cannot be refused since it has been decreed by God.
P. Perseverance of the Saints: (Once saved always saved): Since God has decreed the salvation of the elect, it cannot be changed.
2007-10-12 04:42:57 · 24 answers · asked by primoa1970 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
We are still called upon to evangelize regardless. We don't know who the chosen are.
2007-10-12 04:52:39 · update #1
Has anyone here who disagrees with me ever bothered to read Romans chapter 9....where it says that God created some vessels for honor and some for dishonor?
I didn't say it......God did.
2007-10-12 05:04:47 · update #2
I truly do believe in free will. But I also believe that the free will of man and the sovereignty of God work together somehow. No one can rationally explain how....it just does.
Great answers so far people......even for those who disagree.
2007-10-12 05:42:00 · update #3
Yes Primoa- you and I are on the same boat. I completely understand everything you just wrote, and you did it out of complete compassion- I know this topic gets a lot of debate, and I too have been in debates in the past-- which I now never debate about, BUT when something is brought up, I will say exactly what God says about it. We are not to lean on our own understanding, but in all our ways acknoweldge HIM! (Proverbs 3:5-6)
Yes, I think the main letter in TULIP that people are mad about is the L. But here is what is so amazing-- and what I feel God has revealed to me through His word concerning this. Because most people will say "Well what about in the Bible where it says whosoever comes to Him, or whoever believes"-- this shows that it is open to anyone. Yes salvation is suppose to preached to EVERYONE. God is the one who does the softening, we are the ones who share the truth. BUT when a person "receives" the gospel, they were already going to. Those "whosoevers" were already chosen to receive it. John 6:44 says No one can come to Me unless the father draws him" -- Jesus also tells His disciples that they did not choose Him but he chose them....We are not to have ANY glory in salvation, for it is all God's doing! I have also found many other scriptures that support calvansim-- which is funny it is called that, because I call it "Believing in God's word" LOL
The scriptures people view as "free will" are not free will, but rather those who are saved and who accept salvation were already predestined to. So when Jesus says in Revelation "I stand at the door and knock" -- whoever opens that door, well it is God who helped them open that door, they did not do it on their own. Romans 9 is a great chapter concerning this. And it is a great chapter to HUMBLE us! Nobody should say God is unfair when realizing all of this-- but opposite, they should be PRAISING Him for His sovereignty! Praising Him knowing HE is in full control and knows what is best. He works everything together for HIS GOOD, and for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8)
Keep on sharing the good news of Christ Primoa! You are right we do not know who will be drawn into the kingdom of God- but we do know that He is in control and that we WANT everyone to know the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ!
2007-10-12 05:42:29 · answer #1 · answered by Mandolyn Monkey Munch 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
But sir you have forgotten free will. God has chosen those that He knows will accept the invitation. God does not live in the constraints of time as we do. He can see the end from the beginning. People can and do choose for themselves. If we can't then we are all robots and there is no reason for this life we live here on earth. Christ came and died so ALL could be saved. He took care of ALL sin including the sins of those who would reject Him. I do not agree with all of the TULIP acronym. But I do agree that people are totally depraved and can do no good on their own and I also agree with once saved always saved.
2007-10-12 23:08:35 · answer #2 · answered by CaTcHmEiFuCaN 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are Biblical doctrines. Man is definitely sinful and incapable of believing in God on his own. God elects people based on His will alone – it is not based on any merit in the person chosen. All those whom God has chosen will come to faith. All those who are truly born-again will persevere in their faith. However, I do not believe that Limited Atonement is correct. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins of the elect. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Other verses in opposition to limited atonement are John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 2:1.
2007-10-12 07:55:30 · answer #3 · answered by Freedom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I don't.
What would be the point of anything then? Scripture, rules, life, ALL the other people in the world. Why would a loving father create such a situation and then tell the others that they can NEVER be excepted.
Gods grace can't be refused? What happened to free will?
Once saved always saved? No matter what you did?
Nope, I do not buy it. I don't know how you can know the scriptures and believe such things.
Jesus was kind and loving and did not leave anyone out, neither should we if we call ourselves Christian.
*EDIT I am curious as to why you believe that Jesus came then.
If what you said is true and Gods elect can not refuse or lose their salvation, why then did Jesus come?
**EDIT** Romans 9:21 -"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
First of all it does not say God, it says potter. It also says one vessel for honor it does not say
"only a specific number of vessels."
Romans 10 it says that salvation is open to all.
10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
*****EDIT******
(I know that sounded like I was angry, but I was only being passionate. I do like to hear about others beliefs and the reasons behind them. If we were to do otherwise, we wouldn't be growing in our faith and love.)
Blessings!!
2007-10-12 05:01:38 · answer #4 · answered by Jaye16 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Armenian Christian.
T. Total Depravity....Yes...we can do nothing without the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
U. Unconditional election. No. God knew us from the foundation of the earth but knowing isn't choosing.
L. Limited Atonement. No. Salvation is avalable for all.
I Irresistable Grace. No. Free will is a CHOICE.
P. Perserverance of the Saints....sort of....You can't loose your salvation but you can walk away from God and find yourself so far from Him that you don't realize how you got there....but serving Him everyday, He keeps and helps us not to desire sin or the things of the wold.
2007-10-12 18:10:23 · answer #5 · answered by Jan P 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Primoa,
I do not agree that "Once saved always saved" is found in the Bible nor do I believe that once a person becomes a Christian that he/she can never be "LOST". IN Fact, I had this discussion with a Baptist preacher through a newspaper writing and I got bashed by him rather loudly. I do not agree nor will I ever agree that "Once saved always saved" was ever taught by any of the Apostles and I have yet to find any such teaching in the Bible.
An example from another writer (online) Is:
Paul warned believers what sinful indulgences would guarantee that they would not inherit the kingdom of God! Paul did not, of course, damn anyone to hell, but he did WARN the believers to be not deceived about engaging in unrighteous behavior because they would go to hell: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."-1 Cor. 6:9-10 There are other verses where Paul warns that those participating in these sins will NOT inherit the kingdom of God (they will go to Hell): Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:5. Have a great weekend and a glorious LORD'S DAY!
Thank You for listening,
Eds
.
2007-10-12 18:48:57 · answer #6 · answered by Eds 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hello, primo----a. ia'm a Christian to;i agree with some of your , belief but i disagree with L. Atonement; is not limited it's for all of God people in Proverb;16 and 6 says In mercy a nd truth Atonement is provided for iniquity; And by the fear of the Lord, one departs from evil. Yes God provided, this Atonement, for man sin, and a sin is a sin so it's for all. and we all were chosen, because we are His people and we are Called by His Name. in Ezekiel 16 and 63 says; That you may remember and be ashamed and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame , when I provide you an Atonement for all you have done, says the Lord god, be bless!
2007-10-12 13:05:56 · answer #7 · answered by Rosalinda 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I completely disagree.
The Reformed tradition has a great deal going for it. If you accept the Bible as completely true and literal and then you think about it completely rationally you will get something like this.
I'm more on the Catholic - Methodist - Anglican perspective. I tend to agree with John Wesley, who said taht we also have to consider tradition, reason, and experience along with scripture. Also, the Catholic teaching that the Bible is infallible never meant that it was inerrant and literal.
If you hold to the literal and exclusivist school of thought, though, I wonder if you choose to believe Proverbs' repetitive claim (i.e. Proverbs 10:3) that God rewards the good and punishes the bad on earth in this life or Ecclesiastes (i.e. the whole of Chapter 2) and Job's claim that He does not? By what standard do you choose which to believe and which to ignore?
2007-10-12 05:01:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, I do not agree with these. And if you really mean that the last thing you want to do is "cause a division in the body of Christ," then you would not hold to these principles, either. If you believe people are totally depraved and that only a handful are chosen by God, then you are being exclusionary and ousting entire groups of Christians who do not agree with your theology. That's division. Furthermore, if you believe that once saved, you are always saved and cannot lose your salvation, you will fall into sin but refuse to identify it as sin because you think you're "in" no matter what you do. Finally, you would have absolutely no reason to evangelize, even though Christ told us to, because it wouldn't do any good for others and it won't affect your own status.
2007-10-12 04:49:38 · answer #9 · answered by sparki777 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
I'm sure you'll be surprised by this answer, Primo, but I am not a "hard-line" Calvinist, so I cannot answer yes to each of these points (although I answer yes to some of them). My beliefs fall somewhere in between Calvinism and Armenianism (i.e. I do not believe that either is completely correct). To my view, Calvinists err when they fail to consider that God exists outside of time. Sure, all Christians seem to acknowledge this, but when this concept is applied to Scripture which deals with the "here and now" (aside from prophesy), Calvinists begin to get into trouble. Because I'm a bit short on time today, I'll take the lazy way out and cut-&-paste the following from Moriel.org, a HIGHLY respected Messianic Jewish teaching site:
"Part of the problem with Calvinism is that they try to apply time to eternity. Because Calvinism is based on humanism, Calvinists try to figure things out intellectually which can only be comprehended intellectually to a certain point. They like to emphasize that we're predestined - well, of course, because relative to eternity every choice has already been made. Do I believe in eternal security? Yes, because we are already seated with Christ in heavenly places; in eternity it's already happening. I believe in eternal security as the Bible teaches it. But once saved always saved? No - relative to us it is a variable. Again, this is a thing we can only understand to a certain point. In England we call American football 'gridiron'; it's not so popular, though some people like it. I, however, prefer a game called rugby. So when I have to speak at a church and there's a rugby match on, I try to get someone to videotape it for me. (I do NOT like it when people tell me the scores, which has happened to me twice.) Then, when I get home, I watch the match. Relative to the players, the match is a done deal; it's over. I, however, can be just as involved in the game after the fact (as long as nobody tells me something they shouldn't) as if I were watching it in real time. Relative to me, the match is still going on and can go either way. Our relationship to time and eternity is something like that; to try explaining it any further is beyond me - that is the most the Bible tells us."
EDIT: Primo, your reference to Romans 9 is a good one and I can see why you believe what you do. But as Dr. Prasch explains (and as I believe), Calvinists do not consider the "eternity" factor when they interpret these passages. It's true that Paul writes of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and "vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory." However, when Paul uses the PAST TENSE in each case, this is because we exist in TIME. To God, there is no "beforehand," there is only a continuous, timeless state of being. I'm not sure if this makes sense.
2007-10-12 04:57:45 · answer #10 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋